This is one of those films that I really didnt know what to think of immediately. Usually, that's a good sign, but not in this case.
Its certainly different from anything else I've ever seen, and I can appreciate that. Bjork and cast give good performances. The singing and dancing sequences were enjoyable. There are some really powerful scenes that leave the viewer with impressionable emotions that they wont soon forget. However, its those powerful scenes (particularly the ending sequence) that almost make you forget the mediocrity of this film. Almost!
I dont know what the budget for this film was, and it was probably the intention of the director and DP to shoot the film in this style. Yet, it really didnt work for me. All too often, I found myself wishing the camera crew would use a tripod, dolly, crane, anything. All the hand held shots are poorly framed. The only sequences that I thought were shot well were the "musical" bits. What I found infinitely worse was the editing. First of all, there are a lot of non continuous jump cuts, similar to some Woody Allen films, which I always feel are more of a cop-out short cut, as opposed to a preferred editing style selection. Second of all, the movie doesnt "flow" well, which is the ultimate goal of editing.
Finally, I feel Dancer in the Dark could have been much better. I often ask myself that question when gauging the quality of a film. Despite the aforementioned technical flaws, its a story and concept that could have been transformed into a fine work of art if done a little differently. 5/10
Its certainly different from anything else I've ever seen, and I can appreciate that. Bjork and cast give good performances. The singing and dancing sequences were enjoyable. There are some really powerful scenes that leave the viewer with impressionable emotions that they wont soon forget. However, its those powerful scenes (particularly the ending sequence) that almost make you forget the mediocrity of this film. Almost!
I dont know what the budget for this film was, and it was probably the intention of the director and DP to shoot the film in this style. Yet, it really didnt work for me. All too often, I found myself wishing the camera crew would use a tripod, dolly, crane, anything. All the hand held shots are poorly framed. The only sequences that I thought were shot well were the "musical" bits. What I found infinitely worse was the editing. First of all, there are a lot of non continuous jump cuts, similar to some Woody Allen films, which I always feel are more of a cop-out short cut, as opposed to a preferred editing style selection. Second of all, the movie doesnt "flow" well, which is the ultimate goal of editing.
Finally, I feel Dancer in the Dark could have been much better. I often ask myself that question when gauging the quality of a film. Despite the aforementioned technical flaws, its a story and concept that could have been transformed into a fine work of art if done a little differently. 5/10